or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Positions on Guns in America - Page 9

Poll Results: How do you feel about guns in the US? (click all that apply)

Poll expired: May 12, 2007 This is a multiple choice poll
  • 19% (38)
    It is too easy to buy a gun in the US.
  • 3% (6)
    The proper systems are in place to control guns.
  • 6% (12)
    Gun control laws already go too far.
  • 7% (15)
    Guns save lives.
  • 14% (28)
    Guns are dangerous and should be strictly controlled.
  • 10% (21)
    Guns are a menace and should be banned.
  • 4% (9)
    The 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct (assuming it allows possession).
  • 13% (26)
    The 2nd Amendment is out of touch with modern America (assuming the same)
  • 3% (7)
    College student should have the right to protect themselves with guns
  • 17% (34)
    College campuses are no place for weapons
196 Total Votes  
post #321 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

My take? My take is that your take is bullshit. It's that simple. The PEOPLE, throughout the Bill of Rights, means the PEOPLE... citizens, the PEOPLE. I don't think the "PEOPLE" of the 2nd A is any different from any other usage of "PEOPLE." It's common usage. Please read Amendments 1, 4, 9, and 10 for help with the "people" concept. Then direct your surely gymnastic rebuttal to the wall at your left.

People means people. Why use "people" when you mean "militia" - BOTH are explicitly stated.

If it is not the law, friend, what are 250 million guns doing in private hands? You mean we've been wrong all this time just because you say so and it supports your desire to end basic personal rights? Dang, I hate it when that happens!

We are on the edge of this being explicitly affirmed by the courts, to put a final period at the end of your misguided attempt to deny the People their rights to self-defense.

Stay tuned.

But you understand our courts currently and historically have guaranteed no *right* for all those guns in individual hands, right?
post #322 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The NRA is hard at work trying to protect all Americans:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070504/...M6fjrFHvnMWM0F

"WASHINGTON - The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects."

Trying to protect the 2nd...

Do actually believe your own spin? Your own lies?

Please go on to quote the REASONS that this bill is being opposed, rather than creating a willful misrepresentation by your Rove-esque pull-quote. The language of the bill does not define "suspect." Simply being labeled a "suspect" by the government would disqualify you. Think no-fly list.

Think with intellectual honesty... the government slaps you with an arbitrary label and then suspends your rights? Kinda like is going on with honest anti-war folks being put on watch lists and hassled and harassed? "Suspect," as we have demonstrated since 911, is much too broad to use as a basis for suspending parts or all of the Bill of Rights from citizens. Got a court order? Fine. But it should not be up to the USAG. That is fascism.

Meanwhile, while all of us average NRA people ARE WORKING HARD to do safety classes, teach school kids about the dangers of guns, and lobby for strong firearm law enforcement, WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE? Besides lie about us and try pathetically to make others think we want terrorists to have guns? How much have you done, how much time and money have YOU spent to actually HELP? I thought so.

Nice try, though, to once again misrepresent gun owners and the NRA. My gosh you look silly and patently dishonest. Please feed me these softballs all day long. I welcome the opportunity to demonstrate to thinking people who gun grabbers really are, and what they are willing to do to achieve the goal. Lies and spin like your post are only the beginning.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #323 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

But you understand our courts currently and historically have guaranteed no *right* for all those guns in individual hands, right?

They have also never affirmed your view. If they had, I would not be looking at this nice musket over my mantle. Like I said, stay tuned.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #324 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

They have also never affirmed your view. If they had, I would not be looking at this nice musket over my mantle. Like I said, stay tuned.

We allow individuals to own guns, but there's no constitutional right to individual gun ownership under all but two federal circuit court of appeals. So states in those jurisdictions could very well ban individual gun ownership. Such laws would be constitutional unless the Supreme Court steps in (there being no definitive second amendment caselaw to bind the circuit courts right now.)
post #325 of 367
For some reason, on this first day in a long time where I haven't needed to get up at all if I didn't want to, I woke up at 5:30 am.

I'll respond more substantively, but Jube's response to me reminded me of this conclusion of Gladwell's. He's finishing up a discussion of SUVsspecifically, a discussion of what SUVs are (large, less maneuverable) and what they are not (safer than cars)and how they function in American culture:

Quote:
In psychology, there is a concept called learned helplessness, which arose from a series of animal experiments in the nineteen-sixties at the University of Pennsylvania. Dogs were restrained by a harness, so that they couldn't move, and then repeatedly subjected to a series of electrical shocks. Then the same dogs were shocked again, only this time they could easily escape by jumping over a low hurdle. But most of them didn't; they just huddled in the corner, no longer believing that there was anything they could do to influence their own fate. Learned helplessness is now thought to play a role in such phenomena as depression and the failure of battered women to leave their husbands, but one could easily apply it more widely. We live in an age, after all, that is strangely fixated on the idea of helplessness: we're fascinated by hurricanes and terrorist acts and epidemics like sarssituations in which we feel powerless to affect our own destiny. In fact, the risks posed to life and limb by forces outside our control are dwarfed by the factors we can control. Our fixation with helplessness distorts our perceptions of risk. "When you feel safe, you can be passive," Rapaille says of the fundamental appeal of the S.U.V. "Safe means I can sleep. I can give up control. I can relax. I can take off my shoes. I can listen to music. " For years, we've all made fun of the middle-aged man who suddenly trades in his sedate family sedan for a shiny red sports car. That's called a midlife crisis. But at least it involves some degree of engagement with the act of driving. The man who gives up his sedate family sedan for an S.U.V. is saying something far more troublingthat he finds the demands of the road to be overwhelming. Is acting out really worse than giving up?

Are guns any different, in the end? That is, when we purchase a gun for some mythical "self-defense," is it giving up?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #326 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Uh, thanks for letting us know about your gun-slinging fantasies?



It speaks volumes you come up with that ad hominem in reply to my post which doesn't, in fact, say anything about guns. It's about a moral stance.

The real issue: is the crime victim's health and safety more important than the aggressor's?

My answer is an unequivocal yes. Nothing can obligate me to assume risk a criminal creates, controls and which they have the power to end at any time they choose. If they want to be safe, they'd better stop.

Firearms are just one kind of effective weapon. I don't even own one.
post #327 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gon View Post

t speaks volumes you come up with that ad hominem in reply to my post which doesn't, in fact, say anything about guns.

Except for using the words "guns" when quoting a post about "guns" in a thread specifically about "guns."

BTW: If the substance of your post is little more than what you fantasize about doing in certain situations, you can't complain when someone makes a comment about that fantasy.
Quote:
The real issue: is the crime victim's health and safety more important than the aggressor's?

You clearly haven't paid any attention to the argument I've been making.

Also, here I am saying that I tend to disagree with handgun bans, but that there are a number of issues experienced by those of us in certain relatively high crime areas that are either not addressed or completely ignored by rabid pro-gun advocates. Rather than addressing these issues objectively, you guys just keep talking up scenarios that are contradicted by what many of us in urban environments experience.
post #328 of 367
I may have overlooked it in the thread, are there any statistics on # of accidental shootings, and # of successful self-defense cases, and # of unsuccessful self-defense cases? my opposition to guns is based on the belief that it will lead to more accidental shootings and more deadly and unsuccessful self-defense case; in comparison to the # of successful self defense cases.
post #329 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thuh Freak View Post

I may have overlooked it in the thread, are there any statistics on # of accidental shootings, and # of successful self-defense cases, and # of unsuccessful self-defense cases? my opposition to guns is based on the belief that it will lead to more accidental shootings and more deadly and unsuccessful self-defense case; in comparison to the # of successful self defense cases.

Don't have the time tonight to check, but there is problem some data in the sources in this post:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...&postcount=274

Click on the main link (the others didn't load) and then click from there. Loads of stuff.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #330 of 367
post #331 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post




Required age to purchase or possess a rifle or shotgun: 18 years of age.
Required age to purchase or possess centerfire rifle ammunition: 18 years of age.
Required age to purchase or possess a handgun: 21 years of age.
Required age to purchase or possess handgun ammunition: 21 years of age.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #332 of 367
More Children Killed by Firearms in One Year than Three Years of American Soldiers in Iraq

"In addition to child and teen gun deaths exceeding the number of American military casualties in Iraq, here are some of the deadly facts detailed in the report about the toll gun violence is taking on America’s children:

– In 2003, 56 preschoolers were killed by firearms, compared to 52 law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty.

– More 10- to 19-year-olds die from gunshot wounds than from any other cause except motor vehicle accidents.

– Almost 90 percent of the children and teens killed by firearms in 2003 were boys.

– Boys ages 15 to 19 are nearly nine times as likely as girls of the same age to be killed by a firearm.

– In 2003, there were more than nine times as many suicides by guns among white children and teens as among black children and teens.

– The firearm death rate for black males ages 15 to 19 is more than four times that of white males the same age.

– The seven states that recorded the most deaths among children and teens by firearms in 2003 were California, Texas, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and North Carolina. The state with the fewest child gun deaths was Hawaii with one.

– The rate of firearm deaths among children under age 15 is far higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined. “We have many more handguns and much weaker gun laws than any other country,” says Harvard Professor David Hemenway, who has worked to develop strategies to combat illegal firearms."
post #333 of 367
I want someone to define "illegal gun" for me, as Bloomberg and Edelman use the term. "Illegal" is a gun-hating spin-term for "seizable" or "existing." I mean, who can be against anything that is illegal? No matter what is really meant by the term.

Artman... I'll offer you the same deal... I'll pay for you to join NRA and I'll make a donation in your name to the Eddie Eagle program. We must put an end to accidents like the ones you cite... even if the "gun guys" and the CDF are long-time gun-grabbing hacks who fall right in line behind Sarah Brady, Bloomberg, IANSA, and Kofi Annan.

Just say the word. I'll take care of the rest.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #334 of 367
Drowning kills more kids than firearms.

We must get rid of swimming pools! And rivers! And large buckets! Licensing for pool chemicals! Background checks for pool toys and water hoses!
The time to act is now! How many of you dads out there knew that by building that pool, you were giving your child something more lethal than a loaded gun? Don't you care about the children?

</hysteria>


Seriously, one accidental death from a firearm is too many. That is why thousands of responsible gun owners spend time and money on a daily basis to educate children about the dangers of guns. The evil gun owning bastards at the NRA gives out more gun locks than any group in the nation. Bar none. We're ready to join with anyone who wants a safer environment for both our children and our Constitutional rights.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #335 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

We're ready to join with anyone who wants a safer environment for both our children and our Constitutional rights.

Correction: what you think your constitutional rights should be; not your current rights under all but two federal circuit courts.
post #336 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Correction: what you think your constitutional rights should be; not your current rights under all but two federal circuit courts.

Shawn, we get it. You don't think the People means the People. Great. Awesome. Nice. Tidy. I have the right... you don't recognize it, and the courts have not absolutely ruled on it yet. I get it. This right does not come from the Constitution, I was born with it. The BoR enumerated it.

Happy? You can save yourself the time trying to correct me when we have already established it is a point of fundamental disagreement. I say I do. You say I don't. The gun right here on my hip would indicate that its leaning toward being my right. But whatever makes you sleep better.

Next.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #337 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I mean, who can be against anything that is illegal?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Artman... I'll offer you the same deal... I'll pay for you to join NRA and I'll make a donation in your name to the Eddie Eagle program. We must put an end to accidents like the ones you cite... even if the "gun guys" and the CDF are long-time gun-grabbing hacks who fall right in line behind Sarah Brady, Bloomberg, IANSA, and Kofi Annan.

Just say the word. I'll take care of the rest.

I'll join NRA if you join NORML.
post #338 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Shawn, we get it. You don't think the People means the People. Great. Awesome. Nice. Tidy. I have the right... you don't recognize it, and the courts have not absolutely ruled on it yet. I get it. This right does not come from the Constitution, I was born with it. The BoR enumerated it.

No, you don't get it.

Jube, I'm *not* making a point about what I think the law should be; I'm making a point about the law as it stands right now. I'm saying that the way all but two circuit courts interpret the second amendment, you have no right for individuals to own guns. That's not anything I'm making up. That's just the way the law stands right now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I say I do. You say I don't. The gun right here on my hip would indicate that its leaning toward being my right.

If a state under the jurisdiction of one of those circuit courts decided to ban gun ownership, they could uphold the ban on constitutional grounds since they view the second amendment as not granting a right for individuals to own guns. There's no such law banning guns in your state, so that's why your gun is still there.

Not sure why you don't understand.
post #339 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


I'll join NRA if you join NORML.

No problem for me at all. The war on drugs has been almost as much of a failure as the coming war on guns will be.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #340 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

No problem for me at all. The war on drugs has been almost as much of a failure as the coming war on guns will be.

It's not a War. It's a "global struggle."
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #341 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Not sure why you don't understand.

I'm impressed all to shit with your legal chops. Go ahead and try to enforce this "lack of rights" you seem to think exists. See if the will to take guns from the People exists. It will just cost the Democrats control of Congress once again. I don't agree with your point, as I have said before. You keep making it and making it, but you are getting nowhere with me. Save your breath. We disagree and we are dug in. Be satisfied with being right in your own mind. That's about all that satisfaction you're gonna get from me.

You are wanting us all to believe that just because a court has not ruled on something that it means that you too can interpret it however you see fit. Its the same thing you accuse me of. I say the People means the People, not the militia who are also named directly. It is not the job of the courts to validate your worldview and let you say "you have no rights" until that time. We have freedoms until they are explicitly limited, not the other way around. You are in law school, you should understand that concept.

I don't buy what you are selling. And I laugh at your "it's really not a right, ya know," just because you wish it wasn't. Wishful thinking. Balderdash. Poppycock. Silliness. Lunacy. Shocking and surreal.

I'll say for the final time: stay tuned.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #342 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

It's not a War. It's a "global struggle."

Oops. I set the language blender to "crush" not "puree." Those responsible have been sacked.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #343 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by giant View Post

Except for using the words "guns" when quoting a post about "guns" in a thread specifically about "guns."

I was commenting about two separate things about your post.

The first one's analogy was supposed to point out that people who expect violence are more likely to obtain weapons, so correlation between presence of weapons and violence does not show that weapons cause violence. In hindsight, you might actually have been making a different point which this does not address. Occasionally I make these mistakes when reading English.

The second was not about guns specifically. Sorry if it was unclear that it was separate from the first one.
Quote:
BTW: If the substance of your post is little more than what you fantasize about doing in certain situations, you can't complain when someone makes a comment about that fantasy.

You clearly haven't paid any attention to the argument I've been making.

Just to make sure I hadn't missed anything, I re-read every single post from you and me on this thread. I believe I understand your point pretty well. You think that there are no shootings of innocent people in your community that could be avoided by legal carry. You think that there would be more idiots, careless and hotheaded people shooting themselves and others if they could carry guns, and they would do it also in situations where they would not commit assault were they less armed. You also think having more firearms might cause there to be less crime, and cause some crimes in progress to get stopped.

I don't find much in that to disagree about.
Quote:
Also, here I am saying that I tend to disagree with handgun bans, but that there are a number of issues experienced by those of us in certain relatively high crime areas that are either not addressed or completely ignored by rabid pro-gun advocates. Rather than addressing these issues objectively, you guys just keep talking up scenarios that are contradicted by what many of us in urban environments experience.

I'm not "talking up scenarios", nor am I a "rabid gun advocate". Point to specifics, or we could just drop the mindreading and labeling and rather stick to facts. I'm willing to do that and I think you are too. (Dang intertubes, polarizing otherwise reasonable people.)
post #344 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I'm impressed all to shit with your legal chops.

This isn't legal analysis. It's eighth grade civics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Go ahead and try to enforce this "lack of rights" you seem to think exists. See if the will to take guns from the People exists. It will just cost the Democrats control of Congress once again.

Maybe.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I don't agree with your point, as I have said before. You keep making it and making it, but you are getting nowhere with me. Save your breath. We disagree and we are dug in. Be satisfied with being right in your own mind. That's about all that satisfaction you're gonna get from me.

But what you're saying is just not true.

It's demonstrably wrong:

"Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question." -NYTimes.

I'm not sure what your deal is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

You are wanting us all to believe that just because a court has not ruled on something that it means that you too can interpret it however you see fit.

The federal appeals courts have.

Their interpretation of the constitution is the law unless the Supreme Court overrules them, which they haven't.
post #345 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

I'm not sure what your deal is.

MY deal? MY deal? You are the one that will not let it die. I've told you that I think your position is bullshit and will, in time, be proven to be such. Let me hit it with ya one last time. I do not care what you have to say about this. I reject your position. You are wasting your time, Shawn. I assure you. I guaran-fscking-tee it. Sell it somewhere else.

You want so badly for the 2nd A to go your way, that you are disregarding decades and decades of functional custom and usage. You are obviously a "living document" type, who bends the BoR to say what you want it to say. More bastardization of our Constitution in order to take ever more rights. Words mean things. People means People. Militia means Militia. Both are explicitly stated. It says what it says. Sorry it does not say what it "should" in your opinion. You are turning this into the "new math" version of Constitutional studies.

Oh, the arrogance of someone who says "you've all had it wrong since 1789... this "guns" thing... We are the first generation smart enough to "get it." We'll redefine everyone's "rights" to fit our agenda! The same ethic that made the commerce clause the single most powerful words in the taking of liberties- originally written for something as small as regulation of transactions between state governments. A "living constitution" is no Constitution at all. THIS is the essence of the left-wing attack on the Constitution of the United States. You guys are after the Second Amendment among a few other passages, and the NeoCons are after what little privacy and checks and balances that remain. You go after the Amendments you don't like, and fight like hell for a literal translation of those that you do like. I don't buy this "slow-motion perpetual Constitutional Convention" that you think makes sense. It will, however, make you millions professionally.

But as to the topic at hand... my RIGHT to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

In reality, I have the right until the SCOTUS says otherwise. They have not.

If it was not a individual right, there would not be millions and millions of guns in private hands. There are. You want to make a claim on some agenda-serving fantasy technicality? Be my guest. And forever I will reply "bullshit."

Technically, Texas was never formally made part of the Union in 1845. I guess this means I am not subject to any federal laws, then? We, the people of Texas, fought a War of Independence (with guns no less) over one thing... that the Mexican Government refused to follow and honor their own Constitution. The Mexican Constitution got "clarified" and ignored, just like ours today.

The Constitution is in your way when it comes to creating the United States that you want. I feel for you deeply. But will not budge an inch from what is explicitly stated in that document. It matters.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #346 of 367
Jubelum,

The constitution was created as a fluid document, meant to be interpreted, and amended as society required.

I wonder what you would be saying about that document during the times of prohibition?

Oh, yeah, in typical, hypocritical form, you would have supoprted the repeal. Just like you support introducing anti-abortion laws that don't yet exist.

Face it. You don't care one iota about the constitution. All you care about is yer' guns. You even define yourself as a libertarian to claim your rights (while openly stating you want to restrict rights elsewhere). Define yourself as a constitutionalist to claim your rights (while denying the true meaning of the constitution).

You are a one issue machine. That's all.

(Monty Python Chant)
GUNS, guns, guns, guns, GUNS, guns, guns, guns, GUNS, guns, guns, guns...

Yee haw!
post #347 of 367
I feel like the people who are really afraid of guns are the same people who are afraid of machines in general. Honestly, I'm way more afraid of a guy in a green shirt with a screwdriver, in Glasgow, on derby day, than I am of any gun.

That's not a joke.

Guns exist. Hooligans exist. When guns go away, hooligans and thugs use other things for the same purpose. This is dreadfully evident. It's not a hypothesis or a guess. It's pure fact.

If we were to ban firearms today, in five years there would still be a lot of pissed off sportsmen and hobbyists, and there would still be just as much gang violence. In fact, there would probably be greater gang violence because the illegal gun market would open up quite a bit.

Seriously. In America, guns aren't the problem. The problem is the mother-hen complex. When a mother loses a son or daughter, it becomes personal. Everything has to be done to avenge the wrongful death. There are 6+ billion people in the world. If one dies, it's a shame, but it's not worth taking away from thousands to assuage the suffering of just a few.
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
Cat: the other white meat
Reply
post #348 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Jubelum,

The constitution was created as a fluid document, meant to be interpreted, and amended as society required.

I wonder what you would be saying about that document during the times of prohibition?

Oh, yeah, in typical, hypocritical form, you would have supoprted the repeal. Just like you support introducing anti-abortion laws that don't yet exist.

Face it. You don't care one iota about the constitution. All you care about is yer' guns. You even define yourself as a libertarian to claim your rights (while openly stating you want to restrict rights elsewhere). Define yourself as a constitutionalist to claim your rights (while denying the true meaning of the constitution).

You are a one issue machine. That's all.

(Monty Python Chant)
GUNS, guns, guns, guns, GUNS, guns, guns, guns, GUNS, guns, guns, guns...

Yee haw!

And you, sir, do not have a clue what you are talking about. WTF is this prohibition fantasy? You KNOW how I would have voted? Damn, you are one hell of a psychic. Wrong, but psychic! And you even throw in an ad hominem attack based on that psychic reading! Nice! And where the hell do you get off saying that I advocate new anti-abortion laws? I hope you have AppleCare for your crystal ball. It must be defective.

I can find nowhere in the Constitution the explicit right to abortion. That does not mean that the People cannot, through their elected bodies, make law. Leave the power to the people, not the judges. Got a problem with that?

I do read about the People and Arms. Explicitly. The Militia. and... The People. It is enumerated, sacrosanct, and only major gymnastics can make it say what it does not say.

It's not just about guns. Congrats, super Sherlock, that is my pet issue. I said that long long long ago, right out in the open. So a big blue ribbon for you!

I'm open to discuss anything you'd like to talk about concerning any other right, enumerated or not, that you think we need to go over. I'm here to help. And I reject your silly little "true meaning" and "living document" thing, just like I did for Shawnie.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #349 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

MY deal? MYIn reality, I have the right until the SCOTUS says otherwise. They have not.

Two points:

1. The Fifth Circuit is one of the two federal appeals courts that finds in the second amendment a right for individuals to own guns. So yes, you do have that constitutional right in the states comprising that district (Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana).

2. This is really a simple civics point that you're just wrong about on the facts. The decisions of the federal appeals courts are binding on all the lower courts and everyone who lives in those respective districts. What they say is binding law *unless* the Supreme Court rules on the point in question. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on what we're talking about, so that's why the federal appeals courts differ on the second amendment. Regardless of the fact that the courts differ on that point, what they say is still binding law. That's how our judicial system works.

This is really eighth grade civics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

If it was not a individual right, there would not be millions and millions of guns in private hands.

The states allow their citizens to own guns.

But what you don't understand is that if a state under the jurisdiction of a federal appeals court that does not find an individual right to gun ownership in the second amendment chooses to ban individuals from owning guns, then the court could uphold that ban on constitutional grounds. That judgment is binding law unless the Supreme Court takes the case.
post #350 of 367
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I do read about the People and Arms. Explicitly. The Militia. and... The People. It is enumerated, sacrosanct, and only major gymnastics can make it say what it does not say.

Living document it is; if it were not, the 2nd ammendment which you use to defend your position so strongly with would not exist.

Article 5.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall
propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the
Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for
proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and
Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths
thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the
Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and
fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State,
without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


Why, also, does the Constitution refer to the president as "He"... isn't that a little out-dated? Or, when it was written, were women not assued to be able to vote? See, the Constitution, as written, needs interpreting in order to fit with the modern world. Otherwise, the US would still be in the 18th century.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #351 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Living document it is; if it were not, the 2nd ammendment which you use to defend your position so strongly with would not exist.

Article 5.

Ok then, go repeal the 2nd Amendment. Using the defined process. That's not what you are talking about. You are talking about bastardizing the 2nd Amendment with bullshit "clarification" because you don't have the will of the People to repeal it like say, alcohol prohibition. The "living document" open-to-the-fickle-winds of constant political redefinition is not what the Framers had in mind. Changing the Constitution is serious business... and you do not have the will of the People behind you for such drastic action. So you go for the cheap shot- to "redefine" and "clarify" the Constitution to serve your desire for less freedoms for the People. You want from the bench what you cannot attain at the ballot box.


Quote:
Why, also, does the Constitution refer to the president as "He"... isn't that a little out-dated?

Strawman.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #352 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Two points:

1. The Fifth Circuit is one of the two federal appeals courts that finds in the second amendment a right for individuals to own guns. So yes, you do have that constitutional right in the states comprising that district (Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana).

2. This is really a simple civics point that you're just wrong about on the facts. The decisions of the federal appeals courts are binding on all the lower courts and everyone who lives in those respective districts. What they say is binding law *unless* the Supreme Court rules on the point in question. The Supreme Court hasn't ruled on what we're talking about, so that's why the federal appeals courts differ on the second amendment. Regardless of the fact that the courts differ on that point, what they say is still binding law. That's how our judicial system works.

This is really eighth grade civics.



The states allow their citizens to own guns.

But what you don't understand is that if a state under the jurisdiction of a federal appeals court that does not find an individual right to gun ownership in the second amendment chooses to ban individuals from owning guns, then the court could uphold that ban on constitutional grounds. That judgment is binding law unless the Supreme Court takes the case.

Firstly, I'd have to read each US Circuit Court's ruling, with there many, Many, MANY words/meanings/interpretations (e. g. your 2nd Amendment twisting-of-words argument).

Secondly, in these jurisdictions has any state or municipality COMPLETELY outlawed private gun ownership? Just curious, you know.

Thirdly, if my second point (directly above) were ever made law, you can bet your sweet AZZ, that this would be before SCOTUS in a heartbeat! And at that level, what you are suggesting, will never happen, unless you stack SCOTUS with 9 liberal wimps (the likes of which the SOCTUS has NEVER seen (and by MY definition there has never been one liberal wimp SCOTUS judge to date, TYVM!))! At which point, say bye bye to the USA's so called "rule of law!"

Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #353 of 367
I am not a gun nut- but I do own some.

I grew up around them, and feel comfortable with their presence, and my ability to safely handle and, were there ever an occasion, use one.

I enjoy camping in the wilderness of California where there are many mountain lions. Certainly, this is a great case to carry a firearm. I had a run in with a mountain lion that was guarding his territory. This was the only time I have ever fired in self defense- and I fired at the cat's feet. It stood it's ground, but stopped advancing on my dog and I. The cat lived and so did my dog and I.

Were I not to have a gun- it could have been a bad situation.

As far as CCW- I never feel I carrying need a gun- no matter the hood I am in. I'd just rather not have to deal with carrying a weapon. I also have a lot of confidence and experience in bad neighborhoods- from the Robert Taylor homes in Chicago (where handguns are banned- so yes, only cops and criminals have them) to the tenderloin in SF - or bad hoods in Oakland. I know how to avoid trouble to begin with. That's the whole battle right there. Really, if you have enough street smarts- you don't need a gun- and most times it would pose a disadvantage even possessing one in most situations.

As far as home defense- I like having the ability to defend my home with a firearm. I doubt I will ever need it, but as the line from True Romance goes-

I'd rather have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it.

So my feelings is that there are distinct times and places based on my personal experience for guns. It is a tool and nothing more.

To carry that to a wacko busting caps into me and people around me- well, I could get killed in a motorcycle accident, a car wreck, my house could have a gas line explosion .... etc etc, and I think you get the point. Gun ownership won't mean shit. Life is life and that's it. Maybe you could have a john wayne moment and save the day, or maybe not.

guns really have less to do with that than society's timeless ills. It's not like people were not being killed before guns were around.
post #354 of 367
Your post really describes a lot of how I feel about it, MacRR
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

I'll respond more substantively, but Jube's response to me reminded me of this conclusion of Gladwell's...

I missed it before, but thanks for posting this. It's interesting even outside the context of this discussion.
post #355 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Firstly, I'd have to read each US Circuit Court's ruling, with there many, Many, MANY words/meanings/interpretations (e. g. your 2nd Amendment twisting-of-words argument).

Hey Frank,

I got that from that New York Times article. Here was the quote:

"Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question."

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Secondly, in these jurisdictions has any state or municipality COMPLETELY outlawed private gun ownership? Just curious, you know.

None that I know of, but they have the power to do that in states under the jurisdiction of a federal appeals court that doesn't find a right for individuals to own guns. Conversely, states don't have that power in say the 5th Circuit. DC tried banning hand guns and its circuit later found that it didn't have the right. So those are the two pro-individual rights jurisdictions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Thirdly, if my second point (directly above) were ever made law, you can bet your sweet AZZ, that this would be before SCOTUS in a heartbeat! And at that level, what you are suggesting, will never happen, unless you stack SCOTUS with 9 liberal wimps (the likes of which the SOCTUS has NEVER seen (and by MY definition there has never been one liberal wimp SCOTUS judge to date, TYVM!))! At which point, say bye bye to the USA's so called "rule of law!"

The Supreme Court does like to take cases that help unify federal law-- so there's definitely an incentive for taking a gun rights case to help unify the different interpretations of the appeals courts. (The rationale being federal law is supposed to be the same for everyone, right?). But I'm not sure what you're saying about "saying goodbye to the rule of law."
post #356 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Hey Frank,

I got that from that New York Times article. Here was the quote:

"Still, nine federal appeals courts around the nation have adopted the collective rights view, opposing the notion that the amendment protects individual gun rights. The only exceptions are the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, and the District of Columbia Circuit. The Second Circuit, in New York, has not addressed the question."



None that I know of, but they have the power to do that in states under the jurisdiction of a federal appeals court that doesn't find a right for individuals to own guns. Conversely, states don't have that power in say the 5th Circuit. DC tried banning hand guns and its circuit later found that it didn't have the right. So those are the two pro-individual rights jurisdictions.



The Supreme Court does like to take cases that help unify federal law-- so there's definitely an incentive for taking a gun rights case to help unify the different interpretations of the appeals courts. (The rationale being federal law is supposed to be the same for everyone, right?). But I'm not sure what you're saying about "saying goodbye to the rule of law."

I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion/debate on those rulings, because basically I'm not a lawyer!

However, each case was a judicial decision for certain specifics.

And let me repeat this, if a geographical region of the US, any region with private personal property (people living on their own property), COMPLETELY banned/outlawed private citizens the ability (note that I didn't use the word "right") to own firearms, that would be immediately tested in court, and eventually all the way to the SCOTUS. And if the SCOTUS were to uphold this "law" expect all hell to break loose, because at that point there is no "rule of law" it would be the "rule of fiat!" Besides, Congress would step in at this point, and pass legislation of some form, that would guarantee private ownership of firearms. If not, say goodbye to the good old USA, say goodbye to free speech and decent, when the court gets stacked in the other direction!

And the "well regulated militia" is such a loophole, that I'd expect that ALL members of the NRA (plus other organizations existing or that would be created) would form (perhaps for all intents and purposes, in wording only), if necessary "well regulated militias" of some form.

So basically, firearms will always be available, both legally and illegally!

EDIT - A couple of links WRT US case law, etceteras;

Firearm case law in the United States

Quote:
it is unreasonable to believe The People mentioned in the Second Amendment should fundamentally be different from The People in other parts of the Bill of Rights. It is generally described as containing a declaration of the rights of individuals, not groups. However, there remains much conflict as to the proper interpretaion within the courts, largely because the Supreme Court has always refused, and continues to refuse, to hear a case where the central issue is interpreting individual vs. collective rights within the context of the Second Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #357 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

I don't want to get into a long drawn out discussion/debate on those rulings, because basically I'm not a lawyer!

However, each case was a judicial decision for certain specifics.

Me either.

But I'm going to trust the New York Times when they're making fairly basic points.


Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And let me repeat this, if a geographical region of the US, any region with private personal property (people living on their own property), COMPLETELY banned/outlawed private citizens the ability (note that I didn't use the word "right") to own firearms, that would be immediately tested in court, and eventually all the way to the SCOTUS. And if the SCOTUS were to uphold this "law" expect all hell to break loose, because at that point there is no "rule of law" it would be the "rule of fiat!"

A second amendment ruling that you don't like has no bearing whatsoever on the rule of law.

And the states that might ban individual gun ownership like New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have such gun problems in their urban areas that the people in those states would hardly be all up in arms about a statewide-ban. The legislatures in the states with the greater percentage of gun whackos would never ban gun ownership, so I don't see this "revolt" ever picking up any steam *unless* we have a federal gun ban. Even then, why wouldn't gun supporters just throw all their energy behind enacting another constitutional amendment guaranteeing their rights? If there's such support for gun ownership that "all hell would break loose" then surely there's enough support for another amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Besides, Congress would step in at this point, and pass legislation of some form, that would guarantee private ownership of firearms.

Congress is bound by the constitution; not the other way around.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

And the "well regulated militia" is such a loophole, that I'd expect that ALL members of the NRA (plus other organizations existing or that would be created) would form (perhaps for all intents and purposes, in wording only), if necessary "well regulated militias" of some form.

Maybe!
post #358 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShawnJ View Post

Me either.

But I'm going to trust the New York Times when they're making fairly basic points.




A second amendment ruling that you don't like has no bearing whatsoever on the rule of law.

And the states that might ban individual gun ownership like New York, California, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have such gun problems in their urban areas that the people in those states would hardly be all up in arms about a statewide-ban. The legislatures in the states with the greater percentage of gun whackos would never ban gun ownership, so I don't see this "revolt" ever picking up any steam *unless* we have a federal gun ban. Even then, why wouldn't gun supporters just throw all their energy behind enacting another constitutional amendment guaranteeing their rights? If there's such support for gun ownership that "all hell would break loose" then surely there's enough support for another amendment.



Congress is bound by the constitution; not the other way around.



Maybe!

The BOLD part of your statement is a straw man, because I never said (or implied) such, show me where I said I "don't like" 2nd amendment rulings. Please do! My reading of these cases suggests that individuals don't have an unlimited "right" to firearm possession. Same goes for an "unlimited" right to free speech (e. g. can't phone in phony bomb scares to your local school, etceteras).

Saying that limited rulings by circuit courts allows for a complete firearm ban is an incorrect interpretation of said rulings, IMHO. States and municipalities have set various limits, but as of yet, I don't see a complete firearm ban anywhere, based on private property ownership per my previous comments. If a complete firearm ban were ever to be enacted (on a private person's private property), at any level, it would undergo a severe test, up through SCOTUS, at least.

Your last statement does not make sense, since Congress can amend the constitution (with 3/4 of the state's approval). And since they CAN amend the constitution, they are not bound to the constitution, as it exists at any previous point in time. Passing a federal law WRT quantified private property firearm ownership would not violate the constitution, IMHO.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #359 of 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Saying that limited rulings by circuit courts allows for a complete firearm ban is an incorrect interpretation of said rulings, IMHO.

Well, you're not a lawyer and I'm not getting into any legal analysis myself here.

I'm going with the New York Times on this one.

They must be wrong, huh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

States and municipalities have set various limits, but as of yet, I don't see a complete firearm ban anywhere, based on private property ownership per my previous comments. If a complete firearm ban were ever to be enacted (on a private person's private property), at any level, it would undergo a severe test, up through SCOTUS, at least.

Maybe it would reach the Supreme Court, but my point is that the federal circuit courts are basically the last word on the individualist/collectivist interpretation of the second amendment as it stands. So if it doesn't reach the Supreme Court, then whatever the appeals court says about the amendment is the law for that jurisdiction. Shouldn't be any disagreement there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Your last statement does not make sense, since Congress can amend the constitution (with 3/4 of the state's approval). And since they CAN amend the constitution, they are not bound to the constitution, as it exists at any previous point in time. .

Well, sure, we have a mechanism for changing the constitution.

But that amended constitution is still the supreme law of the land.

It's "binding law" for everyone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Passing a federal law WRT quantified private property firearm ownership would not violate the constitution, IMHO.

I don't have an answer for that actually. Interesting point. Scenario is:

State passes law banning individuals from owning guns.
Courts uphold ban.
Congress passes federal law making guns available.

Don't know.
post #360 of 367
Shawn... FYI, the NYT is not an unimpeachable source. They have an agenda like everyone else in the media. So sure, I'll take the bait. The NY Times is a joke in journalism. That Grand Old Lady has seen much more relevant and accurate days. They drip agenda at every turn. The NYT, much like this thread, is falling from any real meaning or relevance. Time to put both of these nags out to pasture.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Positions on Guns in America